FX cancels 'Terriers,' take 2: Some thoughts from John Landgraf

An extraordinary thing happened in the TV business today. FX canceled "Terriers." That's not what was extraordinary, though. Sad? Sure. But low-rated shows get canceled all the time, even ones as great as "Terriers" was. Later today, I'll post have a short interview with the show's creator, Ted Griffin, about his feelings about the cancellation, but that's not unusual, either - I've sadly conducted too many of those over the years.

What was extraordinary was that the network executive who canceled it, FX president John Landgraf, decided to hold a conference call to discuss the decision.

This simply doesn't happen. I've been covering TV a pretty long time now, and I honestly cannot remember anything like this happening before. Hell, most of the time it's a chore just to get a network to acknowledge that a show's been canceled at all. It's a testament to just how good "Terriers" was - and to how candid and self-reflective Landgraf is - that this thing happened.

Landgraf spent 30-plus minutes on the phone with reporters. He wasn't defending the cancellation, because the terrible numbers - at one point, he pointed out that for the season "Terriers" averaged 509,000 adults 18-49, which was woefully short of the season averages for previously-canceled FX shows like "Dirt" (1.6 million), "The Riches" (1.4 million) and "Over There" (1.3 million) - did all the defending for him.

Rather, Landgraf - who sounded as sad and defeated as many of the reporters on the call (yours truly included) - wanted to give the press, and by proxy, the show's small but passionate fanbase, a glimpse at how the sausage gets made, and at why this particular sausage tasted delicious but didn't sell.

I don't have time to fully transcribe it now, but among the highlights:

• On Friday, Landgraf brought Griffin and producers Shawn Ryan and Tim Minear in for a meeting where he could show them both the starkness of the ratings numbers - "You could have doubled the ratings," he told us, "and it still would have been the lowest-rated show we've ever had" - but also research that the network conducted a few weeks into the season. Once it became clear that the show had launched badly, Landgraf wanted to figure out what went wrong. Was it, as I and many others have suggested, a failure of marketing? He defended the marketing campaign, noting that by far the most influential type of marketing is on-air promos, and that the majority of their promos did, in fact, feature Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James, did say that it was a buddy comedy, etc., etc., and that the focus groups all felt the promos they saw accurately reflected the show.

"If I legitimately, objectively believed that the reason it didn't launch is because of the title, or we had convinced all of America that it was a show about dog fighting," Landgraf said, "... that might have been a reason to renew the show." But that's not what their research showed.

(As a slight rebuttal, I would say that well before FX began airing those promos with the actors, they were running a lot of short teasers that did just feature the barking dog, and that certainly didn't make people want to pay attention when the real promos started airing later. Still, Landgraf is as candid an executive as I know in the business, and while I think the marketing didn't help, I believe him when he says they found it didn't hurt much, either.)

• Obviously, they had problems getting people to tune in (it was FX's lowest-rated series premiere), but also had trouble holding onto people. In that same focus group post-mortem, the viewers "thought the show was compatible with FX's brand but not similar to other FX shows. They found it to be a little less edgy, a little less suspenseful. I think the things that were really wonderful about the show, were relatively subtle. What they found is that it had a subtle charm that kind of crept into your psyche over time.

"I don't know if subtlety is something the American public is buying in droves," he added. "When I look at 'Jersey Shore' and the Kardashians and 'Sons of Anarchy' and 'Walking Dead'... I wouldn't say that subtlety and nuance describes the most successful kind of pop content in America today."

• As everyone has, he acknowledged that the title was probably a barrier for entry, but he said that even if they had renamed it "Terriers, PI" for a second season, the odds that that change alone might have tripled the ratings into acceptable levels weren't great.

• He sang the show's praises consistently, calling it "a credit to FX" during its time on the air, and responding to a critic's question about proposed tweaks for a second season by saying, "I don't think you could make 'Terriers' much better." In the end, he said, "I don't think there's anybody to blame. We wish that there was a perfect intersection between all that is good and all that is successful, but the reality is that there's a very poor correlation between creative success and commercial success." FX has aimed for that narrow intersection where the two meet. Most of the shows that the network has canceled had creative problems as well as commercial ones. Other than "Damages" (which did last three years), Landgraf hasn't had a lot of experience with a heavily-praised show struggling to stay commercially viable.

But as he noted near the call's end, "This isn't the first good show we've had to cancel, and it won't be the last."

Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Unfortunately, the audience was so incredibly tiny that I just can't imagine that happening. Southland had ratings that almost justified network renewal, making it viable for cable, whereas Terriers was small time by any standard. And I don't like using the past tense to describe the show.

OK, second take: Sorry if that sounded bitchy, but it was a bum note in an otherwise impressive performance. Personally, my deal breaker with 'Terriers' is that the first three episodes just weren't that good. Yes, there was a near Cougar Town/Parks and Rec de-suck curve, but (fairly or not) new shows really have to grab and hold my attention early or I'm gone and very hard to get back.

That's not really fair--he's not saying that as a suggestion, he's saying it as an observation after the fact. They gave us a subtle, nuanced show that treated the audience like intelligent people. People didn't like it.

It's not like he's saying "Here's my pitch: people hate subtlety, so let's make a stupid show for them." He's saying they made a smart show, and it did like, just unbelievably poorly in the ratings. Meanwhile, Jersey Shore did great. It's hard not to draw certain conclusions. I don't know what you want from the guy, FX has put some pretty good shows on the air, but there's not much they can do if people don't watch them.

DB COOPER: There's nothing "faux populist" about the simple fact that there are plenty of subtle, nuanced shows that are viable. Mad Men? Sons of Anarchy? Breaking Bad? Hell, even The Good Wife isn't exactly American Pie. It's all very nice blaming the stupid plebs for Terriers tanking, but could there just be other factors in play. You know, like the pilot being terrible and the initial marketing being too clever for its own good?

I don't think he means that none of those shows possess any subtlety, but they have immediate allure (biker violence, zombies, Julianna Margulies). Terriers features two actors you've maybe never seen before sort of solving crime and avoiding their vices.

Funnily enough, I found Terriers immediately watchable, and The Walking Dead pilot put me to sleep, so obviously YMMV. I think you're being a little hard on his statement, though.

How do "Dirt" (1.6 million), "The Riches" (1.4 million) and "Over There" (1.3 million) numbers compare to today's standard? Haven't all ratings trended downward in the last few years? Wouldn't "Terriers" at 0.8 million in 2010 be pretty comparable to 1.5 mil in, say, 2007? If I recall, "Dirt" and "The Riches" each had two seasons. And better marketing.

While I can appreciate where Landgraf is coming from, I still think that marketing failure figures into the lack of ratings for Terriers. As someone who watches a lot of television and subscribes to both the print editions of TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly, I can assure you that marketing and advertising for Terriers ended early. They gave up on this show week #2.

I wish to god AMC had Terriers, somewhere subtlety is both appreciated and revered.

LJA - Network audiences have trended downward. Cable audiences have, for the most part, trended upward. FX, for example, has seen shows like "Sons of Anarchy" and "It's Always Sunny" improve in ratings over the years. AMC, Showtime and other comparable networks moving into the "scripted game" have also seen ratings go up in recent years. There is, alas, no way to spin those "Terriers" numbers. And that 800,000 figure, for the 18-49 demo, was for an isolated high episode, rather than the closer to 500,000 average for the whole season...

I fear the days of "appreciating subtlety" at AMC are numbered, now that they've realized that they can get higher ratings by aiming for a broader, less discriminating demographic. It's no coincidence RUBICON was cancelled the week after WALKING DEAD premiered.

I really don't think it's a shot at The Walking Dead. It's a comment that The Walking Dead isn't about subtlety. Which, frankly, I agree with, despite the fact that I think The Walking Dead is very good. I think his exact point is that both good things and bad things seem to do better if they're bigger and more blown out.

Agreed. Plus, like I replied above, he threw Sons of Anarchy in there with the other non-subtle shows. Hard to say he was taking a shot at one of his own shows.

I personally loved the subtlety of Terriers. Of course, I also liked Rubicon. These shows just aren't for everyone. What's a television station to do? I for one am thankful that FX continues to keep coming up with such amazing original programming, with more (hopefully) quality shows on the way. I'd rather have one season of Terriers than none.

The REAL sad day will be when they cater to the masses. That will be the day that a station dies, and not just a single program.

What Landgraf is saying is honest and accurate. Terriers was just too subtle for your average viewer. Sad state of afairs, but true. Name a subtle show that is killing in the ratings? I'm waiting, no, nothing. I can name a few that are still on because they are doing okay in the ratings, but it is the critic acclaim and/or buzz factor that keep them on the schedule, Mad Men for instance. Seriously consider Mad Men's ratings compared to The Walking Dead. Not even in the same ballpark. What about The Good Wife on CBS, not excactly one of their top rated programs. This is just not what the American public is looking to watch right now. I find that incredibly sad and it puts me in the minority, but it is just a statement of fact. No one is slamming viewers or any show, just telling it like it is.

I love FX, I think it's the best network out there, but he is dead wrong about the marketing aspect.

The only reason I even heard of Terriers is because I follow Kurt Sutter on twitter. He mentioned something to Shawn Ryan on there, I saw Shawn Ryan (who I never heard of before) was from Chicago like me, started following him and decided to check the show out because of that.

I never paid attention to the two or three promos I saw on FX for Terriers and I NEVER saw any other advertising for it around Chicago. Even friends who religiously watch FX shows had never heard of Terriers until I brought up the dog and then it was ' Oh! The Dog with the Teeth? I'll pass'.

Poor marketing ruined this show. Nobody heard of it, and those who did remembered a dog with teeth.

Landgraf can say whatever he wants, but the marketing was f*cking HORRIBLE. The other reason the show tanked is because - yes - most TV watching zombies don't want subtle. They don't want smart. They want Dancing With The Goddamn Stars. Same reason The Wire never had the ratings it deserved. Luckily HBO allowed Simon time to tell his story. If the ratings dictated whether or not The Wire had stayed on the air, it'd have been gone after the first season, or the second if we're being generous. And EVERYBODY who knows quality TV knows that The Wire is, if not the best ever, one of the greatest shows in the very history of the medium.

I just wish Terriers was coming back. I'm pissed, hurt, and fully aware I take all this too seriously, but I still want my show back, dammit.

I think Landgraf's point wasn't entirely that the marketing wasn't as bad as we think it was, but that bad marketing did not appear to have been a serious factor in the poor ratings.

I'm not sure how that argument gets made, personally, but I think that's what he's saying.

I, too, only tuned in the pilot because a critic--in my case, Alan here--kept telling me to. The commercials did NOT grab my interest.

I think Landgraf's point about subtlety--not saying the shows he mentions are BAD, just saying they're not about SUBTLETY--is a really valid one. As I mentioned in Alan's SAVE TERRIERS! post, I know a woman who just stopped watching after the pilot because she thought Hank's character was "horrible," due to the forged mortgage signature move and the Jason harrassment. She took Hank at face value, and didn't decide it would be interesting to see if he was a more complex character--which he certainly turned out to be. He's right that the stuff that's grabbing attention isn't subtle. Even Mad Men got off to very poor ratings, and didn't start becoming a phenomenon until the awards validated it--and people started getting a good look at John Hamm and Christina Hendricks! In a television world where Bridalplasty can even be proposed, much less made, there is not a lot of room for nuance.

ITA about the marketing. Granted, I only have anecdotal evidence, but all the people my husband and I spoke to who watch a lot of tv but don't watch any FX shows had never even heard of "Terriers". Those who did watch an FX show or two thought, "dogs." Down. To. A. Man.

Also? They didn't make catching up with the show easy, thanks to the 8-day delay on Hulu and what not. To catch up, you had to buy an ep from iTunes or Amazon. Who wants to shell out money for an unproven show? In this economy?

Focus groups are an unreliable breed all in all. According to focus groups the public REALLY wanted a lower fat burger selection from McDonalds. Focus group after focus group, after sampling the prototype, said they'd like to eat healthier and would. The McLean that was developed in response to focus group feedback remains the greatest FAILURE in Micky D history. No one really wanted it, they just wanted to want it. Same thing with Campbell Soups ... focus groups galore insisted they wanted lower salt soups but it turns out that the lower salt soups aren't selling and Campbell's is giving them up and going back to the original recipes.

What people say to people administering a questionnaire and what they really think and do can easily bear little relationship to one another.

I've been a consumer and marketer for a long time and those ads did absolutely NOTHING to represent the show or offer any enticement to tune it. I don't even remember seeing any ads with Donal Logue et. al. All I remember seeing were those relatively annoying teasers of terriers digging and barking. It said nothing about the show at all and had an unfortunate smug quality that was off-putting ... they were too much like an inside joke. Inside jokes wear thin fast and become off-putting.

I don't care what their focus groups said ... those ads were abysmal. I don't think the title was that bad, but gearing the ads to that imagery and reinforcing that identifier was a big mistake.

Well it's moot now and I can only hope something was learned. It's just frustrating to see a little gem so obviously mishandled and then to read that focus groups told them all was hunky dory. To me that just proves you can get people to tell you what you want to hear instead of what you should know.

I just wanted to add that I respect Landgraf's accessibility and his willingness to talk about what happened. That does indeed seem a rare and refreshing thing. I just found the notion that the focus groups reassured them that the advertising wasn't a problem to be something from a wishful thinking universe.

"This isn't the first good show we've had to cancel, and it won't be the last."

Yeah, but might this be the greatest show they've canceled? One that, for that matter, has an admitted barrier to people tuning in, specifically the title and the marketing? I read his findings, but I don't buy them. A LOT of people have noted the confusion with the title. I can also see it being misleading in that, yes, some of the promos (well, one from memory, where Hank said he'd visit Britt for conjugal visits in jail) had the buddy/PI angle, but that was not what most of us saw for most of the promos. Then once they say that was a failure in marketing (and it was by all accounts) we saw very little that would change that impression. Then when they had the Bus Tour which, God bless them, I'd have LOVED to have attended, nobody knew when or where it was going to be that I could find.

I sympathize with John Landgraf and appreciate his passion for the show. However, I am legitimately angry and feel with some reason. There was a market for this show. There is a built in fanatical fanbase. There is, and has been, a growing tide of support. I cannot remember such a critically acclaimed show being canceled. This is truly a great show that has potential to have a very big audience. The accessibility is there. What it needs is just a venue to make how good it is and get the vibe across.

Hey John Landgraf if you want to make up for canceling Terriers you'll finally green light to pilot that Powers TV show FX has been working on. If your smart and want a huge cable hit like True Blood and the Walking Dead you should make that show.

To James: That's exactly the thinking that breeds the whore mentality. Of course FX COULD keep Terriers on the air despite the fact it makes the network less money. FX COULD demonstrate a commitment to artistic excellence by making that choice. That's the point. FX SHOULD have done something different than what we'd expect from corporate whores. It chose not too. Which is sad. TV is a business. It doesn't have to be a dirty business.

LucasCorso - No. That's the thinking that allows FX to fund seasons of shows like "Justified," "Sons of Anarchy," "Always Sunny in Philadelphia," "The League," "Archer" and two seasons of "Damages" after the point at which ANY other network would have cancelled the show. "Over There" was cancelled without any real debate or consternation. "Over There" averaged nearly three times more viewers in the key demo than "Terriers." When a show has a third the viewers of a show that was a failure canceling it isn't "dirty." If "Terriers" had attracted an audience the side of "Over There," it would have gotten a second season. A commitment to excellence is developing excellent shows and putting excellent shows on the air. A commitment to excellence is encouraging the showrunners of those excellent shows. In no way does a commitment to excellence require you to accept ratings that wouldn't be acceptable on any network on television, right down to the smallest and most niche networks on TV. There are emotional reasons why FX would have renewed "Terriers," but not only are there no business reasons, but there are no logical reasons. Even the creators of the show understand that FX didn't have a *logical* choice choice.

Let's be clear: Terriers did so poor in ratings that X's shareholders could have sued the company for taking actions that would not profit the corporation. Blaming them would require you to blame the US legal system

Dan: I'm a professional. There is no "logical" reason for me to do pro bono work. But I do. Why? Because life is about more than a bottom line of dollars. You have totally bought into this notion that there is no room for programming excellence unless it is also popular. Which is why we are stuck where we are. You have accepted corporate whoredom. I was hoping FX would be different. It isn't. Get ready for more Dancing with the Stars. Anything that is really good doesn't have a chance. The best we can hope for is "pretty good, but dumbed down enough to connect with a mass audience." Very sad. More sad than FX canceling Terriers. It's very sad that so many people accept the "didn't make enough money" excuse. What a crummy world we live in.

Nicholas: That's just silly. FX is making boat loads of money right now. FX, more than maybe any other cable outlet, had the luxury of sticking with a quality show. When there is no room for quaility, when it is just about the bottom line of finances -- time to turn the TV off.

Hey Lucas, try this one: Forget "didn't make enough money." Try "didn't draw enough viewers." Try "PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT IT." I loved "Terriers" It will be in my Top 5 for the year. But people didn't WATCH. By your logic, NO show should be cancelled, because EVERY show has fans and every show, no matter how awful, has fans who think that the show is fantastic and wasn't given a chance. When I write a cancellation story, invariable *somebody* will show up and write a comment about how the shows they love get cancelled too soon. It happened for "My Generation." It happened for "Lone Star." It happened for freakin' "Outlaw." I promise you that there are many more people who loved "Outlaw" than loved "Terriers." How sad is that? To me? Hugely. And somebody at NBC is probably still convinced that "Outlaw" is a great show that viewers didn't give a chance to. Again, they're wrong. But who's to make that choice. FX didn't renew "Terriers" not because the show wasn't making money, because because the statistical evidence said people didn't want the show and wanted it more. You want FX to renew "Terriers" pro bono and not to care about making money? "Outlaw" fans want NBC to renew "Outlaw" pro bono. "Undercovers" fans want NBC to renew "Undercovers" pro bono. That the fans of "Terriers" are right and the fans of "Outlaw" are wrong can't be relevant to the discussion, because you couldn't sit down with the "Outlaw" fans and explain to them why they're wrong. Because they're passionate. Most of them don't use the Internet and most "Terriers" fans do but that's a different issue. So the pro bono work should be done based on a vocal minority rather than a quieter majority? FX cancelled "Damages," a show with ridiculously passionate fans, a show with Emmy wins, a show with extensive critical support and a show with many times more viewers than "Terriers." That's just how it goes. FX did still give "Damages" three seasons, with higher ratings than "Terriers" but lower ratings than anything else on its schedule, because FX valued what other people saw as quality.

In the end, all you're saying is "FX should be noble and keep the shows I like." OK. But just say that. Don't make it sound like you have principles here. You want FX to keep the show you love, just like "Outlaw" fans, just like "My Generation" fans, just like "Undercovers" fans. That I happen to agree with your taste is irrelevant.

Dan (I assume Feinberg) what the hell? Between your comments here and the recent podcast you're overriding point seems to be, "Everyone's 'favorite' show gets cancelled. Now shut up about it."

If people want to rant about how the show was gone too soon and how Landgraf is an idiot isn't this the place to do it. Isn't that how this site gets more traffic? Is this about maintaining access with FX? Lighten up.

Sigh. You also could stand to lighten up if my disagreeing and offering a counter-argument to somebody ranting about the whores at FX somehow offends you. [And if you insist on misinterpreting my "overriding point," which is actually that I prefer to celebrate the life of a show I loved (to be impressed it existed at all), and be disappointed and sad, rather than to get OUTRAGED at the decision to cancel it.]

Dan, I wasn't offended. I was just surprised that you chose to respond to such a ludicrous comment with a pretty impassioned "defense" of a network decision. I don't know how "access" works for you guys.

I like the Firewall & Iceberg podcast and your opinions but I guess I can be lumped into the crazy douche-nozzle category based my "misinterpreting" and the sarcastic apology.

Clay - My response to the ludicrous comment was WAY too long. I spend a lot of time reading/moderating comments and sometimes my buttons apparent get pushed... But yeah. I can't dispute that my response was way too long.

To Dan: Your mentality is part of the problem. In Arts & Entertainment, some of us see both. To some, like you, they merge. People didn't want Terriers? No duh. We got that from ratings. Based on 13 episodes, not enough people wanted Terriers. But based on 13 episodes, it was also the single best written show on television. So what happens? Whore mentality says, "cancel it." Bottom line. Dollars. All that. Someone committed to the "arts" portion of the equation says, "give it another chance, remarket, push it forward in search of the audience it deserves." Alternatively, "make a commitment to programming excellence."

This isn't simply about me "liking Terriers," Dan. Many shows I "like" get canceled. I don't sign petitions. I don't excoriate execs. This is about premature cancelation of a television gem. I'm fighting for Terriers not simply because I love the show. Also because I recognize it as fantastic storytelling. The likes of which is rarely seen on TV. It's so good you have to give it more of a chance to find an audience. In this particular case. Not just because I "like it."

If these instant gratification standards had been applied to MASH however many years ago (not a great show), it wouldn't have survived to become the most watched series finale in history. If these standards had been applied in the early 90s to Seinfeld, it never would have seen a second season. Someone at NBC said, despite terrible ratings that would have gotten most shows canceled, "this is fresh, it's inventive, it's sometimes genius . . . we need to give this show another go-round in hopes of finding its audience." The rest is history. Would that have happened with Terriers? I don't know. Probably not. But maybe. But why not give it a chance? If it is as good as Landgraf says, why not stick with your excellent program and give it more than 13 lousy weeks?

One of the really silly things you wrote, I think it was you Dan, was about shareholders suing. Really? Would NBC shareholders have been able to sue the network when Seinfeld was renewed against all odds? Of course not. It's a programming decision and execs in areas of creative entertainment aren't held to a strict bottom line. If they were, Award winning movies wouldn't be made. For every minor commercial success that doesn't make money but wins awards, there are commercially successful movies that successfully pander to broad audiences while sucking. The same companies often make both. The crap funds the gold. There can be room for both.

Coming forward and calling Terriers excellent and then canceling it after 13 episodes makes Landgraf a whore. "Can" he cancel it? Sure. "Can" I rail against the decision? Yep. "Can" I petition the network? Oh, yeah. "Can" I boycott? Yes. And I'm doing all those things. Why? Because Terriers was special. Uncommon excellence. Great storytelling. I'm all about that.

You are part of the problem, Dan. People like you, who merge "art" with "entertainment" completely are part of the problem. People who accept television as a crapfest because of financial bottom lines are part of the problem. We should openly demand more. Maybe someday it'll save a show like Terriers. I hope it will.

I still think it didn't help that Dish pulled FX for a month after Terriers had only aired 3 or 4 episodes. I don't know how many potential viewers that represented, but it made me stop watching. Did any reporters comment on that Alan?

Same here. I had 3 eps in my DVR that I hadn't got around to (I tend to wait on new series before investing time in them) and the *poof* a big huge hole in the season so I basically dropped it from my list to record once it came back.

@ FranExactly--you don't turn a ratings-challenged show around by making it hard to catch up. You run a marathon of episodes. You offer a deal on iTunes. You keep the pilot up on Hulu, and maybe an edited summary, like all those Lost summaries that ABC made as the show went on. You also pair your ratings-challenged show with your signature show Sons of Anarchy (why didn't they put repeats of Terriers right after Sons of Anarchy--that's just a no-brainer). The truth is: after a couple weeks, when it was obvious that the show wasn't going to take off, they let it die. This conference call was too little, too late.

Yeah, this was a subtle show that wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I don't believe it was given a fair shot, and I'm convinced that if it had aired on AMC, that it would have been a success. Just think about that iconic shot of Cranston in his tighty-whities. Terriers needed a teaser shot like that, that compelled an intelligent viewer to check it out. And we got a dog.

Exactly, Dudley's Mom. I missed a few of the earlier episodes (I think 2-5) and wanted to catch up last week. Both Hulu and FX had only 8-12 available. Even if there's a limited number of episodes available on Hulu, FX should have had every episode available on its site.

The thing is, this is a very good show, but it's also accessible. Even after missing some episodes, I was able to easily pick it up again. It's not The Wire. But a lot of people don't want to start watching a show in the middle, even if it's the first season.

Dan said upthread that no one wanted it. I think it's more a case of no one knowing what it's about (although, on the other hand, if you know anything about FX's shows, you should have the sense to know it's not about a dog. Anyway, I'd watch a show about Donal Logue and his dog)

So, I get that the ratings were so terrible that FX couldn't do anything *but* cancel it. I just don't think they did enough to promote it. That's on their heads.

If I hadn't heard good things about it from Alan I would've probably missed the premiere and not recorded it every week. Other than a few promos I saw during the SOA premiere I wouldn't have known that Terriers was on the FX schedule.

You had to be a TV snob to even know this show was made let alone know that it wasn't about dogs. They aired aired a first-run original episode (the penultimate one) at 10 pm on the day before Thanksgiving, arguably one of the busiest travel days of the year. That alone should show you how much they wanted the "Terriers" property to succeed.

They couldn't figure out the "hook" for the show so they put out to pasture.

And Dan please stop with the PR work for Mr. Landgraf, OK? Name me an FX original that hasn't aired 65 times over in a 13 episode season and I'll be impressed. They have to fill the schedule.

Bullshit, this guy is about numbers and money just like everyone else. If he was about quality he would of renewed the show , plain and simple. He threw out that focus group nonsense as an excuse but the marketing was god awful and thats why the show failed, all you saw was that dog commercial and right before they threw in some hank brit commercials, but it was much too late by then.

I actually never saw any of the promos for the show on tv, but just from the ads of the dog I see online and add to it the name, I genuinely thought it was a show about dogs (like, maybe some kind of Best in Show tv series) before it aired. Then I heard that Shawn Ryan and Tim Minear are behind it, so I made sure to watch it anyway, dogs or no dogs. But before I actually watched the show, I had no idea what it would be at all. So, I can't imagine the marketing not being a huge part of why the show never got any kind of an initial audience. It'll be different if the ratings opened big and fell dramatically. It's not like a lot of people watched it and hated it, but that barely anyone watched it at all.

It's a small sample size, but I have to admit that I am one of the people who *could* have been into this show, but never made it, for a few reasons:

1. Despite what they said, the marketing killed it for me. The prominent teeth-baring dog, the title - pass. Even once I read some new-season show previews and realized it wasn't a reality show, the synopses I found didn't even stir my interest. Basically it just sounded like a cop show retread.

2. Once the good press started buzzing and I realized hey, this sounds like it could be good, I should check it out, it was mid-season, and my cable's On-Demand only went back a couple eps. I didn't have much interest in jumping into a well-written show mid-season. Is this Comcast's fault, or Fx? It seems *REALLY* dumb to limit the on-demand content for a show struggling to find its audience - doesn't it need all the help it can get?

I caught the first episode, missed the second, saw part of the third, missed the next two because I was traveling, and after that it was just hard to find the missed episodes, fit them into my schedule, and then watch new episodes.

I think the networks dictate their OnDemand offerings, not the cable company. It's a shame. If I had had easier access to back episodes, I think I would have gotten into it, because I enjoyed what I saw.

I think John Landgraf is a great network executive and has produced some of the best programming on basic cable. That being I don't get FX. I anticipated Terriers because Tim Minear was one of the writers and would follow him to the gates of hell (or the elevators doors as it were with Angel). However, when I saw the previews I was very confused. I could not tell what the show was about at all. I realized that Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James were the stars but I did not know what the dynamic was the show. I thought it would be one of the gritty dramas like Sons of Anarchy and Justified with some witty banter thrown in. I watched the program on hulu and greatly enjoyed it but it took me a while to understand the tone of the show. I have become very busy recently but still made time to watch the program on Hulu.

The same fate should not happen to Chicago Code (formerly "Ride Along").

Landgraf is a whore. Just like every other corporate honcho. I guess I appreciate the "transparency." He left no doubt about his priorities. Ratings. Ratings. Ratings. If FX stumbles across artistic gold that doesn't equate to ratings. Cancel it. After 13 episodes. Don't try to remarket it. Don't try to save it. Just end it. Quality isn't important enough. I expect that from Fox (Wonderfalls, Firefly). I expect it from ABC (Knights of Prosperity, Miracles). I expect it from networks. For some crazy reason, I was hoping FX was different. I was hoping that the level of excellence meant exhausting efforts. I was wrong. Whores rule television.

As a fan of the show,I bring up the thing that I believe threw each episode off the rails every week:The totally lame & inappropriate theme song. It did nothing to draw an audience in, to shine a light on the distinct world we were about to enter. As opposed to a show like " CHUCK ",where the music perfectly sets the tone.

Alan,I'm very interested in hearing whoever chose TERRIERS theme song defend their decision.

TK: No way. Everyone Terriers watcher I know of loves the theme song. If you know the lyrics, you'll know it's not the cute little pop-y number it appears to be. But if you hate it, there's always the mute button.

To support Ripvanw1nkle's point: Enterprise wouldn't have lasted past the first episode if the theme song were a determining factor in viewership. And I despise the theme song for Men of a Certain Age, because the Beach Boys make me want to run screaming from the room, but I never miss an episode.

1. The showrunners did everything possible to present their product badly. Idiotic name, awful title sequence, horrible music (at least for the type of show this was). Plus, episodes tended to start slow.

If you just turned the show on to see what it was like-- knowing nothing about it or having only a recommendation from a friend-- you would have seen nothing in the first five minutes to make you think the show was worth watching.

One guy reported back by saying "I couldn't watch it. I hated THE BIG LEBOWSKI and I could see it was that kind of a show." That's what he thought he was getting.

If you have a show that's difficult to get, you need a title sequence/theme song that gives the viewer some idea of what it is. It's become a lost art, but the USA network shows still do it well. (In 45 seconds, BURN NOTICE gives a first-time viewer everything they require.)

One final hate on the name. It was so rotten that even the showrunners didn't stand behind it. They gave one of the protagonists a dog-- and look what breed they chose.

2. The marketing was a disaster. They stuck it in the middle of the week, with nothing in front of it and ran those horrendous promos. Every critic seemed to love it, but I never saw those quotes used to push it.

3. My sister, the marketing whiz, loathes focus groups. As she says "You'll never get a representative sample, because a lot of people hate focus groups and refuse to get involved."

"And unless the person running it knows what they're doing, they won't get good data." Most people, as one of the other comments said, tend to tell a facilitator or interviewer either (a) what they think they should say or (b) what they think the person wants to hear.

"A lot of times, people don't know what they think-- or they don't know how to explain it properly."

The McLean Deluxe fiasco came about partly because focus groups told McDonalds that their large sandwiches tasted "heavy" or "soggy". McDonalds tried to make a light sandwich by cutting the fat content of the burger (from 20% to 9%) and adding a seawaeed extract to make it chewier.

Eventually the company figured out (two CEO's later) that people were trying to explain that (a) McDonalds had stopped toasting their buns (cost-saving), so the bread got soggy when you ate it, and (b) the new griddles (which cooked both sides at once, reducing cooking time) weren't giving the patties the crispness on both sides.

Not to frag FX too much, but focus groups mean you're letting 20-50 people make a decision for you. If FX has to keep cancelling shows that they think are really well-made, it's an indicator that they aren't doing a great job of selling them.

I just love the title sequence. The song is catchy and beachy (and I imagine Michael Raymond-James singing it, but that might just be me). The font is reminiscent of old style PI/cop shows, there's ocean in the background, and it's short. I enjoy Burn Notice a lot, but that opening sequence goes o. For roughly two hours and, at this point, just puts me in a bad mood. I can't believe someone would give up on a show during the opening credits.

Totally agree about the marketing, and while I love the name I'll admit that it works better as an in joke.

The title sequence is fantastic. Had a very Tarantino feel to it. Look, not everyone is going to like everything. But ripping the actors (that's to your point, Frantiga -- Logue especially has been around long enough to have a following) or the title sequence is simply missing the point here. It just isn't the kind of show people watch these days. It wasn't. It was fantastic and entertaining and I came to absolutely love it, but those of us who feel that way are in the minority.

Well, neither of you comprehend that the packaging needs to describe the contents. But your defenses make my point. It's a detective show-- "beachy" and "tarantino feel" are exactly what you don't want.

You don't get a second chance to make a first impression, and with so many new shows, people make decisions very quickly, absent some compelling reason to watch.

Damn he KILLED Sons...same sentence as Kardashians and Jersey Shore really?? Not a nice way to speak of your flagship show. And I for one think what's best about SOA is when it's firing on all cylinders it has that great balance of action AND nuance. Like a well written blockbuster.

I think people are misreading that particular comment, in part because I didn't include the long ramp-up to it.

What Landgraf was trying to say is that the things that were most appealing about Terriers were the subtle components: the chemistry, the emotion, the small little stories. There's no big hook, no loud and obvious selling point. Sons definitely has nuance at times - as does The Walking Dead - but what drew big audiences in in the first place was a chance to see bikers and/or zombies kicking ass. Terriers had nothing comparable.

Landgraf gave us a little bit of the "transparency" there. I like SOA. It is entertaining. But it isn't anywhere near as sophisticated or "subtle" as Terriers. It isn't tripe like Jersey Shore. But don't expect anything ever from FX better than SOA. "Pretty good, but dumbed down enough to connect with a mass audience." That should be FX's slogan.

I think FX still has a commitment to quality. Look at LOUIE. What kind of show is that? It's not entirely comedy, it's not entirely drama, but "dramedy" doesn't quite suit it either. It treks in both smart and low humor. And it's getting a second season. Partly because the deal they have with Louis CK makes it cheap to produce, but they're still committed to a quality show.

I don't think one cancellation indicates that FX is going to stray from the model that has worked for them. They'd be stupid to do that. Just because TERRIERS didn't work, it doesn't mean that the next smart show won't.

"We wish that there was a perfect intersection between all that is good and all that is successful, but the reality is that there's a very poor correlation between creative success and commercial success."

Sorry, but for all your love of Logue and Raymond-James, neither are leading men or particularly compelling actors. They're pretty good character actors, but both suffer from "John Reilly syndrome" - they're talented, surely, but neither are good-looking or charismatic enough to hold audience attention. Both have long been journeymen actors who shine in supporting roles and for good reason. That said, I don't think Raymond-James will ever live down his role as the scary-ass Rene in True Blood, which was another problem. Sorry for your loss, man, but I knew this was coming from the outset.

I disagree. I found both to be very compelling in Terriers, and thought they made great flawed-heroes (as they were intended to be), sort of grounded lead men in the show. They oozed charisma and completely sold the friendship between the characters (with good reason considering their real life friendship).

No, I think it was a matter of misguided marketing combined with word-of-mouth not being able to bring enough viewers to a show mid-stream and the show dying out before its potential to develop an audience was even remotely tapped into.

It's true I can't think of a case where eye candy hurt a show. I know a couple people who initially tuned in to "Justified" 'just 'cause TO looks damn fine in jeans ("Elmore who?"). But as far as Logue and MRJ are concerned, I agree with Dave. Hank and Britt are two characters I actually wish were real, just so I could go hang out with them and enjoy their company. So kudos to the actors for making me care so much about figments of someone's imagination.

"I don't know if subtlety is something the American public is buying in droves," he added. "When I look at 'Jersey Shore' and the Kardashians and 'Sons of Anarchy' and 'Walking Dead'... I wouldn't say that subtlety and nuance describes the most successful kind of pop content in America today."

Truer words were never spoken. First "Rubicon," and now this. Enjoy your "Dancing with the Stars," sheep.